There was a case in my city a few years ago where police killed a 50-something man whose hands were cuffed behind his back. Supposedly he was grabbing for some officers' naughty bits. All the officers were completely cleared in the internal investigation.

In 2000, city legislators established a Citizen Review Board for these cases as a response to anger over several of these cases, as there was a very realistic fear of rioting. The FOP has tied it up in court ever since.

My personal favorite happened here in Chicago several years back. A former Northwestern student was shot and killed by the CPD during a traffic stop. He was unarmed. Bill Nolan, president of the Fraternal Order of Police, told the press the student may have been out to commit suicide and decided to get the cops to shoot him. Unreal.

That is extremely disturbing. I would like to know the full context of that situation, but it's hard to understand why that was necessary from the video. Does anyone have any more info about what the deal was?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

No doubt we will be hearing a great deal more about this in the days to come. Public alarm over this incident is huge and growing. Sooner or later the powers that be will have to make some kind of definative statement and/or take some decisive action.

The officer has since resigned and has been advised not to speak to investigators. I think I read something about him getting a psych evaluation too. Grant's family is planning a lawsuit against BART, and there have been violent street protests in Oakland (Grant's family is calling for calm.)

The whole thing stinks on ice.

_________________________
"A body at rest can not be stopped!!" - The Tick

Police Use of Force 101-the officer may use reasonable force based on HIS perception of the events. Since we don't know his perceptions it is impossible to decide right or wrong.Rather than rush to judgement why not wait for the investigation by those who will gather all the facts to decide it. What caused the police to come into contact with this group? If I recall they were taken off of a train-why?What was the reported crime-personal, property, violent, weapons involved? If weapons were involved someone who refuses to put and keep their hands in plain view would be considered a threat. If you reach under your body in a prone position same thing. Did the officer under stress draw his pistol instead of his Taser and accidently shoot the subject-it's happened at least three times-two times here in Minnesota that I am aware of. Did the officer intentionally kill an unarmed man for no reason other than he had a badge, a gun and a bad attitude? I doubt it but that has happened also. There is a large part of the story that has not been relayed in the media yet.Getting the full story takes too long and doesn't get ratings. If you don't know all the facts then any judgement is based on limited information. All we really know is a man was killed by a police officer and it is on several phone videos. The officer at the advice of his counsel has resigned rather than be questioned. Five days after the shooting based on the media coverage rioting has broken out. I guess I never understood how being angry about someone elses perceived illegal actions justifies someone breaking the law. You hae been advised to choose carefully..I would suggest you withhold judgement until the facts are known.

No reasonable person would suggest acting before all the facts are in. However, the great fear is that the officer might get a pass regardless of the facts. That happens often enough.

It amazes me how many people I have already heard making excuses for why this copper may have acted as he did--they aren't waiting for the facts, either. I mean, how @#$% obvious does the abuse have to be befor people see there might be a problem? Civilians never get this kind of consideration.

Everyone knows me here and knows that no one is more empathetic for LEO concerns than I am. That being said, I disagree with your first statement.

A police officer may use force, however, regardless of his "perception" he does not get, "a pass" as fileboy put it.

If an officer's perception is wrong or he used force that is unwarranted, then no matter what the officer's "perception" was, he can face very serious consequences.

Possibly I am disagreeing with the way you worded your statement and there really is no disagreement. I'm not completely sure.

On the other hand, I disagree with fileboy that this can be categorized as, "abuse" on the police officer's part. An accidental shooting is an accidental shooting, however, that does not justify or excuse the officer in question from facing serious repercussions....

Quote:No reasonable person would suggest acting before all the facts are in. However, the great fear is that the officer might get a pass regardless of the facts. That happens often enough.

It amazes me how many people I have already heard making excuses for why this copper may have acted as he did--they aren't waiting for the facts, either. I mean, how @#$% obvious does the abuse have to be befor people see there might be a problem? Civilians never get this kind of consideration.

1,Give me several examples of officers getting "passes".2.Civilians do get this consideration-it's called a criminal investigation.

The officer can only act on what he knows-his perception. The force he chooses to use must be reasonable or he faces the consequences. Case in point-A armed deputy just outside the booking area sees and hears the following:1. Several louds booms he beleives are gunshots coming from the jail area.2. Hears a jailer screaming, "He's got a gun, he's got a gun."3. Jailer runs past the deputy pointing behind her.Deputy draws his gun.4. Guy comes running around a corner right behind the jailer.5. Deputy shoots the guy. Is that a reasonable use of force based on the deputies perception? In that split second would that be an appropriate choice? In that flash of a moment in time would you considerate it reasonable to fire to save your life, the jailers life and everybody else's life in the building?

I am trying to address the idea of perception. In the actual case that happened the guy coming around the corner was a handcuffed DUI suspect who was attempting to escape the shooter.....He was shot, tragically. The officer however was cleared of any wrong doing based on his perception of the situation in that split second of a "rapidly evolving, tense situation" (Graham v Connor)not the "clear 20/20 hindsight" of the actual situation. And that is my point- officers have to make split second decisions based on what they know (perceive)in that split second. If you don't know what they officer believed at the time you can't possibly decide if the action was reasonable or not.

I don't agree with that. Rodney King? Video can most certainly be used as evidence of improper action - as it seems to be in this case. Again, the situation is totally different in this case than what you are referring to.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

I think Duane makes a great point, even if it has no bearing on this case.

My issue is simply watching this video, I see no crime, I see a mistake, a really bad mistake, but a mistake. Many here have seen a crime, scream abuse etc. I am not ruling that out as I don't know all the facts, but the problem with calling this abuse, when if as it appears to me is just a mistake, is it belittles the real abuse that takes place from LEO's against the citizens of our country.

Truth of the matter is this, I believe that most people are good, and act to the best of their ability. If you make a mistake, you have to face consequences, but that should viewed very diferently then a person who makes a choice, to do harm or put others in harms way.

Well, I do not know how many "several" is, so I'll give you the one I am most familiar with: the John Burge Case in Chicago.

Although a federal probe concluded John Burge and several of his officers routinely tortured suspects to extract confessions, neither Burge nor any of his officers were ever prosecuted. Burge was forced to resign in 1993; however, he got a full pension and is still having his legal bills paid by the City of Chicago--to the tune of $8 million so far.

Think about it. Burge and his guys spent 20 years dragging suspects into a basement, smashing their heads with phone books, suffocating them with typewriter covers, shocking them with cattle prods, chaining them to hot radiators and running electric currents through their genitals. If you, me, or any civilian did such a thing, do you think we'd be collecting a pension and living free in Florida?

And are you really shocked that cops find it easier to get away with bad behavior than the general public? You shouldn't be. In any case, the evidence is everywhere: do a google search on police misconduct if you want more examples.

Quote:I don't agree with that. Rodney King? Video can most certainly be used as evidence of improper action - as it seems to be in this case. Again, the situation is totally different in this case than what you are referring to.

As usual I am not exactly sure what you don't agree with. I don't recall stating that video CAN"T be used as evidence-that would be absurd-obviously it is evidence. Once again I am not using the last case because it is similar in nature. I am talking about the officers perception as being an absolutley critical component in the decision making process. To repeat myself-until we know what the officers perception of the threat was we cannot judge if the action was proper or not. By the way in the California State trial the officers were found NOT guilty in the King Case. Why? Unlike most who had an opinion, a jury who heard the WHOLE case, not just sound bites on CNN, found no wrong doing. The officers were found guilty in Federal court.

In 30 seconds of research on the web I found the following regarding the Burg case.1. He was not prosecuted because the acts committed were past the statute of limitations. Making prosecution unlawful. Not a choice by the Prosecuting attorney.2. He was indicted in Federal Court on two counts of obstructing justice. So he was criminally charged-I don't know what the outcome was. It's too bad if he did was is said of him he should be sitting in a jail cell somewhere for all the crimes.

Quote:By the way in the California State trial the officers were found NOT guilty in the King Case. Why? Unlike most who had an opinion, a jury who heard the WHOLE case, not just sound bites on CNN, found no wrong doing.

Are you joking? Do you remember the OUTCOME of that little decision? That jury was a bit biased, yes?

Astonished that you use that example, dude! So the Federal trial didn't get anything but the soundbites, eh? Funny that they came to different conclusions! Or maybe not.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Burge was indicted by the Feds, but not for torture. He was indicted for perjury--i.e. for lying when he said he and his men did not torture people.

The statute of limitations had indeed inspired, but that proves my point. To see why, you have to understand a little bit about Illinois politics. When allegations against Burge first surfaced (in 1982!), Richard M. Daley--now mayor of Chicago--was Cook County States Attorney. His office did nothing. His successor [censored] Devine, had to recuse himself from the case because he had once DEFENDED Burge against charges of torture in a civil trial. Devine's successor, Lisa Madigan, also failed to take any action. To this day, men who were tortured by Burge continue to languish in prison; Madigan has yet to review any of their cases.

In short, Burge and his cronies got away with torture because the entire system--from the CPD's Office of Professional Standards to the Cook County States Attorney's Office--let him get away with it. Had any ordinary citizen been systematically torturing people in this way, this NEVER would have happened--they'd have been locked UNDER the @#$% jail for the rest of their lives.

Jeez man. Your argument is so bereft that you abandon it immmediately, huh? YOU brought up the state trial point, which I was addressing. Are you trying to say that you agree with the state trial's decision?

Quote:Speaking of prejudicial juries-nothing like knowing the outcome of the last not guilty finding to influence you.

Not sure what you mean. The Federal trial did not give the same verdict as the state did. The blatant injustice precipitating the riots, may have had more effect.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

I have a question about the Rodney King case: did anyone else have a problem with the venue being changed to Simi Valley? I can understand why LA might have not been the best choice to insure a fair trial, but Simi Valley seemed just as bad, albeit for different reasons. As I understood it, Simi Valley was not only overwhelmingly white but also home to a huge population of LAPD officers and employees. Am I remembering this right?

After watching it and speaking with several other LE instructors, absent other known issues, it would seem as if "mentally" the officer was drawing and deploying his Taser. I admit that I do not know where on his belt his Taser was or if he in fact had one at all, but the draw motion he made and hand positioning was very consistent with Taser training.

In Taser certification and recertification classes a great deal of discussion is spent on the placement of the device on the belt as to not create confusion in stressful incidents.

There had been three reported incidents of such confusion previously where suspects were shot with a gun when the intent was to use the Taser.

This was clearly an awful incident and the officer clearly owns the responsibility. His intent however, which will determine the level of homicide charge, will have to be determined in court.

Saying he was just an evil cop and wanted to murder this guy may feel good for some to say, but probably is not an accurate statement.

Quote: As I understood it, Simi Valley was not only overwhelmingly white but also home to a huge population of LAPD officers and employees. Am I remembering this right?

RE: Rodney King

Yep, I was here during the riots and for the life of me couldn't understand moving the trial to that venue. And yeah, Simi Valley is not hip deep in the multicultural, Baskin Robins 31 flavors mix you might consider the rest of California to be.

I am not African American and "I" still can't understand how the jury came up with "not guilty" for the cops after viewing the tape many times. Granted, not there in the courtroom, but still I scratch my head at that one. And I am never surprised when some DNA evidence exonerates some poor schmuck who's been in jail for 10 years for something he didn't commit.

BTW, not saying anything bad about cops or LEOs, but the occasional judicial belch that leads to these 'passes' on justice still rankles. Perhaps more so by their semi-rarity which highlights them even more.